Lancaster v. State
| Docket Number | 6751. |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1929 |
| Parties | LANCASTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 22, 1929.
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Generally motions for new trial are heard and determined without hearing of oral evidence.
On hearing of motion for new trial in prosecution for rape refusal to cause witness, who had been indicted for perjury as result of conflict in testimony, to be brought before judge for oral examination on hearing of motion held not error.
Ground of motion for new trial complaining that court admitted, over objection, testimony of witness for state relative to affidavit made by former witness and turned over to witness testifying because parol testimony was inadmissible to bolster up affidavit, failed to show in what connection or for what purpose affidavit was offered and did not show error.
Party making motion for new trial has burden of showing error.
In prosecution for rape, question of consent to act was jury question, and refusal to admit testimony of physician in response to hypothetical question which in effect elicited expression of opinion on question of consent was proper.
Where jury during trial were sent from courtroom pending examination of witness to determine admissibility of evidence, order of court permitting public to re-enter courtroom after having been excluded during absence of jury was not error, on ground that it might have some inflammatory effect on jury, under Civ. Code 1910, § 5885.
Under Civ. Code 1910, § 5885, authorizing judge to exclude public where evidence tends to debauch morals of young, it is never reversible error for trial judge in his discretion to allow public to occupy seats in courtroom so long as their conduct is orderly, peaceful, and does not tend to obstruct justice.
All trials are normally and properly open to public, except where, in court's discretion, evidence tends to debauch morals of young, under Civ. Code 1910, § 5885.
Where court permitted jury in company of deputy sheriffs to proceed to defendant's offices to determine whether person in private office could see through frosted glass door and such conduct was consented to by defendant and state, such action by court was not ground for new trial.
In prosecution for rape, charge that flight, if proved, from which inference of guilt may be drawn, may be considered by jury, and that inference of guilt therefrom is for jury held proper.
In prosecution for rape, charge requiring testimony corroborating female's testimony and that question whether testimony has been corroborated by circumstances of bruises, good character, and complaint by prosecuting witness was for jury, held proper.
In prosecution for rape, charge that fact of prosecuting witness having made complaint is evidence, but details of complaint cannot be considered, and that delay in making of complaint may be explained, question being for jury, held proper.
In prosecution for rape, charge that rape requires the use of force overcoming resistance of female, and, if consent to act is made at any time, defendant cannot be convicted of rape, held not error.
In prosecution for rape, charge reciting contention of defendant, admitting sexual intercourse with prosecuting witness, but claiming consent thereto, and contention of state that act was accomplished without her consent and against her will was not error.
In prosecution for rape, charge to convict, if defendant had carnal knowledge of prosecuting witness, and that at time she had lost consciousness, and had not given defendant any reason to believe she consented, was proper.
In prosecution for rape, conviction was supported by evidence.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; E. D. Thomas, Judge.
Carl Lancaster was convicted of rape, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Refusal to cause witness indicted for perjury to be orally examined on hearing of motion for new trial held not error.
Carl Lancaster was convicted of rape. The jury recommended him to the mercy of the court, and fixed his punishment at a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 20 years servitude in the penitentiary. The record discloses that Miss Hazel Arnold, 17 years of age, was employed as the stenographer of the defendant, an attorney at law, in the city of Atlanta. The testimony of Miss Arnold, summarized, was that on January 9, 1928, four days after having begun work in the defendant's office, the defendant entered said office and instructed her to get her coat and hat, pencil and pad, and accompany him to interview a client; that they got in an automobile and went to an apartment located at 650 North boulevard; that she was ushered into a rear room by Lancaster, but upon seeing no one there she declared she would not stay; that on his instructions she had removed her coat and hat, and he told her there was some one in the next room and he would go in and see who was there; that on his return he was in his shirt sleeves, and took up a kodak, telling Miss Arnold to remove her clothes, as he wished to make a picture of her, but she remonstrated that she would not permit any such picture to be made of her; that he further said he had a friend in New York, and he thought she "could get into the movies," and they could make $500 on such pictures; that he had to have them and she had to consent; that she told him she would never do it, whereupon Lancaster jerked the jacket of her dress off, telling her he would kill her if she did not take her skirt off; that she removed the skirt, wrapping a sheet around her to prevent being photographed without the dress, and he "snapped the kodak," and then endeavored to strip her clothes down, and snapped the kodak again; that when Lancaster stripped down her clothes she began to fight him and scream, whereupon there was a knock at the door; that Lancaster put his hand over her mouth and pushed her onto the bed, "and then I fought, and when I came to he was fully dressed, and he handed me a towel, and when I saw him with the towel the first thing I thought of was this Hickman case where he strangled the girl to death with a towel"; that she thought he meant to kill her, but he told her to take the towel into the bathroom and use it, "and if you make any scene about this I will kill you"; that when first she began to scream as he was endeavoring to disrobe her she got down on her knees and prayed him to spare her; that she fainted when he pushed her on the bed, and knew nothing more until she saw him with the towel; that she had fainted from shock a number of times in her lifetime; that she went into the bathroom at his direction, and when she returned he said he was going out, which he did, locking her in the room; that she tried to escape by the door and by windows to no avail, and was unable to get help by signaling toward the street; that Lancaster returned with a box of sanitary pads and safety pins, which he gave her, and which she applied; that she told him to take her back, and he took her by the arm, holding her tightly, and took her back to the business part of town, making offers to her of a watch, which she rejected, and took her into a lunchroom and told her to eat her lunch and not create any scene or he would kill her; that she did not answer, and ate only part of the lunch; that they returned to Lancaster's office, where he warned her against relating what had occurred by telephone or otherwise; that she feared to relate the matter to any one in the office and decided she would tell no one but her parents; that she was nervous, but remained until he returned to the office and handed him some telephone numbers she had marked down for him and he told her she could go; that she departed for home, and upon reaching home she broke down and wept, telling her mother and father what had occurred; that they called in a physician, who examined her, and she went to Dr. Manget and Dr. Baggett a day or two later for examinations; and that she had never had sexual intercourse until the occasion of the alleged rape.
The state introduced the two physicians above named, who testified that their examination revealed evidences of a forced copulation and a newly broken hymen, bruises, and lacerations; also the testimony of the janitor of the apartment house where the alleged offense occurred, which was that he had heard a noise like laughing in the room he tried to enter, or a noise like a woman crying or being smothered and walking or stamping on the floor, and that Lancaster told him nothing was amiss; also testimony of witnesses to the effect that Miss Arnold was a girl of chaste and virtuous repute; testimony of the parents that Miss Arnold made complaint to them of the affair immediately upon arrival home on said date; testimony that she was subject to fainting spells; testimony that Lancaster could not be located for a considerable time after a warrant was issued for his arrest; and testimony that Lancaster made overtures of marriage to Miss Arnold after prosecution had been instituted. The defendant, in his statement, admitted carnal knowledge with Miss Arnold, but declared that it was on a "party" that had been arranged between them, and told of instances that he claimed occurred when he had been in intimate attitudes with her. He denied all charges of force and unwillingness. He introduced testimony of several witnesses tending to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial